Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 19: 49-57, 1973;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Westgard, J. O.
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Westgard, J. O.
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, M. R.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 19, 49-57, Copyright © 1973 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method-Comparison Studies

James O. Westgard 1 and Marian R. Hunt 1

1 From the Department of Medicine and the Clinical Laboratories, University of Wisconsin Center for Health Sciences, Madison, Wis. 53706

We have studied the usefulness of common statistical tests as applied to method comparison studies. We simulated different types of errors in test sets of data to determine the sensitivity of different statistical parameters. Least-squares parameters (slope of least-squares line, its y intercept, and the standard error of estimate in the y direction) provide specific estimates of proportional, constant, and random errors, but comparison data must be presented graphically to detect limitations caused by nonlinearity and errant points. t-test parameters ( bias, standard deviation of difference) provide estimates of constant and random errors, but only when proportional error is absent. Least-squares analysis can estimate proportional error and should be considered a prerequisite to t-test analysis. The correlation coefficient (r) is sensitive only to random error, but is not easily interpreted. Values for r, t, and F are not useful in making decisions on the acceptability of performance. These decisions should be judgments on the errors that are tolerable. Statistical tests can be applied in a manner that provides specific estimates of these errors


Key Words: Student’s t-test • least-squares parameters • proportional, constant, and random error • limitations of statistical tests • correlation coefficient • F test • decision-making on method acceptability • glucose determination as an example

Accepted on October 7, 1972




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 J Am Coll Cardiol ImgHome page
H.-J. Chang, R. T. George, K. H. Schuleri, K. Evers, K. Kitagawa, J. A.C. Lima, and A. C. Lardo
Prospective Electrocardiogram-Gated Delayed Enhanced Multidetector Computed Tomography Accurately Quantifies Infarct Size and Reduces Radiation Exposure
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., April 1, 2009; 2(4): 412 - 420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. O. Westgard
Use and Interpretation of Common Statistical Tests in Method Comparison Studies
Clin. Chem., March 1, 2008; 54(3): 612 - 612.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
D. G. Altman
Poor-Quality Medical Research: What Can Journals Do?
JAMA, June 5, 2002; 287(21): 2765 - 2767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
K. Dewitte, C. Fierens, D. Stockl, and L. M. Thienpont
Application of the Bland-Altman Plot for Interpretation of Method-Comparison Studies: A Critical Investigation of Its Practice
Clin. Chem., May 1, 2002; 48(5): 799 - 801.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
D. G. Altman and J. M. Bland
Commentary on Quantifying Agreement between Two Methods of Measurement
Clin. Chem., May 1, 2002; 48(5): 801 - 802.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
S. Mantha, M. F. Roizen, L. A. Fleisher, R. Thisted, and J. Foss
Comparing Methods of Clinical Measurement: Reporting Standards for Bland and Altman Analysis
Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2000; 90(3): 593 - 602.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
K. Linnet
Necessary Sample Size for Method Comparison Studies Based on Regression Analysis
Clin. Chem., June 1, 1999; 45(6): 882 - 894.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
J M. Bland and D. G Altman
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, April 1, 1999; 8(2): 135 - 160.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
K. Linnet
Limitations of the Paired t-Test for Evaluation of Method Comparison Data
Clin. Chem., February 1, 1999; 45(2): 314 - 315.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
D. Stockl, K. Dewitte, and L. M. Thienpont
Validity of linear regression in method comparison studies: is it limited by the statistical model or the quality of the analytical input data?
Clin. Chem., November 1, 1998; 44(11): 2340 - 2346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
L. D. Bowers
Analytical goals in therapeutic drug monitoring
Clin. Chem., February 1, 1998; 44(2): 375 - 380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
P. H. Petersen, D. Stockl, O. Blaabjerg, B. Pedersen, E. Birkemose, L. Thienpont, J. F. Lassen, and J. Kjeldsen
Graphical interpretation of analytical data from comparison of a field method with a Reference Method by use of difference plots
Clin. Chem., November 1, 1997; 43(11): 2039 - 2046.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JDRHome page
E.I.F. Pearce and G.N. Major
The Colorimetric Analysis of Sialic Acid in Human Saliva and Bovine Salivary Mucin
Journal of Dental Research, November 1, 1978; 57(11): 995 - 1002.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1973 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.